AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE short judgment will serve the purpose as we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum, Mumbai in C/139/94. THE respondent/complainant had hired the service of the appellant No. 1 for transport of his grape creates on 28.3.1993. THE vehicle was on the way from Wangi, Tal. Khanapur, Distt. Sangli. It is stated that on 29.9.1994 at about 4 a.m. the vehicle broke down after crossing the octroi naka at Pune. THEre was, therefore, delay in engaging other vehicle belonging to opposite party No. 2. It was the vehicle No. MH-14-5310. However, the driver, Mr. Salim Shaikh, did not possess the proper driving licence and his vehicle was therefore, detained at the Trombay Check Post and ultimately the vehicle reached Mumbai after a long delay by which time, the market had closed down. THE respondent/complainant had to suffer a heavy loss. THE remaining crates contained about 38 boxes. 40 crates were rejected. As against the prevailing prices of Rs. 190/- per kg. for 20 kgs., the complainant could obtain only Rs. 40/-and thus sustained the loss of Rs. 13,110/ -. THE son of the complainant had accompanied the vehicle of opposite party 1. According to the appellant, the truck was engaged by the son of the complainant, without verifying that the driver had the licence and if the vehicle was detained at the check post on account of absence of proper driving licence, the complainant has to thank himself and that no liability should be imposed on the appellant/opposite party No. 1.
THE fact remains that the appellant offered for hiring his vehicle with the clear understanding that the consignment has to reach Mumbai. If the vehicle failed on the way, the appellant cannot escape the responsibility for searching out other mode of transport or timely removal of crates to Mumbai. Grapes are admittedly perishable and need proper transport immediately. If there is any inordinate delay and damage caused to the perishable product, the transporter is responsible. Apart from that in spite of opportunity given to the appellant, no affidavit has been filed and the District Forum rightly held that the sole testimony of the complainant has to be accepted and as per that affidavit, the vehicle was engaged by appellant and that the vehicle was detained because of want of proper licence on the part of the driver. We, therefore, feel that the order of compensation appears to be correct. The quantum arrived at by the District Forum also appears to be proper and in that light of the matter, we pass the following order : ORDER
The appeal is dismissed with however, no order as to cost. The order of District Forum is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.